In Weisberg v. Kensington Professional and Associates LLC, 2016 WL 1948785, at *3 (C.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Pregerson refused to stay a TCPA case pending the outcome of Spokeo because the Plaintiff alleged actual injury.
The invasion of privacy and the allegation that the illegal calls cost Plaintiff and the class money — financial harm — are not speculative future injuries or injuries based on the violation of rights provided in a statute. Thus, while the relief sought here is injunctive and statutory damages, Plaintiff does allege actual monetary damages. Seeking statutory damages where they are available is not the same as alleging statutory standing. Unlike the many cases Defendant cited in its Motion, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient actual injury to avoid a stay based on Spokeo‘s potential decision regarding statutory standing. (E.g., Mot. Stay at 1-2.) Further, Plaintiff’s actual injury is not similar to the injury the plaintiff in Spokeo argued he suffered. The plaintiff in Spokeo claimed that the defendant had published false information about him, impacting his ability to find employment and causing him psychic injuries. Spokeo, 742 F.3d at 410. This allegation of injury was debated by the lower courts and discussed during the Supreme Court’s oral argument as potentially insufficient to show actual injury for standing purposes. But in this case, Plaintiff has alleged an invasion of his privacy and monetary damages. These allegations are much more concrete and particularized than those alleged in Spokeo and have been accepted as actual injuries in other cases. Therefore, the Court declines to stay this case because any decision in Spokeo is not likely to change the standing analysis in this case.